Laserfiche WebLink
st <br />document. He was told the Board stopped the process December 31 yet he said he was told he <br />st <br />had until July 31. His appeal showed there were clerical errors made and he thought that he and <br />Mrs. Reidinger should not be penalized and have to pay the fee for errors that were made by others. <br />He would have had the contract and the permit submitted by September of last year if it were not <br />for the errors. <br />Chairman Neuberger understood the error was because records showed there was a <br /> <br />house on the lot but, in fact, there was no house. <br />Mr. Gehrke <br /> added that the Property Appraiser’s office even had a photograph that <br />showed a house on the lot. He finally got everything cleared up last week. <br /> <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Davis, SECONDED by <br />Vice Chairman Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved <br />the appeal and overturned the denial. <br /> <br />12.B. COUNTY ATTORNEY – APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF <br />REQUEST FOR NEW IMPACT FEE INCREASE EXEMPTION <br />– JM REID CONSTRUCTION, INC. <br /> <br />County Attorney Collins explained this item was similar to Item 12.A. <br />Robert Nall, <br /> Attorney for JM Reid Construction, Inc., explained that there was an <br />affidavit of Julie Reid, an officer of JM Reid, and other documents on pages 287-297 of the backup <br />that sets forth her delivery of all applicable materials in June of 2005. The affidavit states that a <br />female employee accepted the documents and the Reids thought everything was in order. They did <br />not request a receipt but gave their phone numbers to the clerk. They later learned in February <br />2006 that the documents were lost or misplaced and the affidavit is submitted to get the impact fee <br />exemption. <br /> <br />March 7, 2006 <br />31 <br /> <br />